2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2018.01.046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the options for incorporating nuclear data uncertainties in criticality safety assessments for LWR fuel

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The application of a best-estimate computational route is now complemented with conservative coverage in the form of a stochastic analysis of the main uncertainty components in combination with the application of bounding burnup profiles, as illustrated below. Furthermore, the USL value considered in this final stage of the work is now based on the comprehensive validation study for LWR fuel performed at PSI for the MCNP code in combination with the ENDF/B-VII.1 library, which has been selected for the routine criticality calculations [10,11].…”
Section: Methodology For Preliminary Loading Curve Derivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The application of a best-estimate computational route is now complemented with conservative coverage in the form of a stochastic analysis of the main uncertainty components in combination with the application of bounding burnup profiles, as illustrated below. Furthermore, the USL value considered in this final stage of the work is now based on the comprehensive validation study for LWR fuel performed at PSI for the MCNP code in combination with the ENDF/B-VII.1 library, which has been selected for the routine criticality calculations [10,11].…”
Section: Methodology For Preliminary Loading Curve Derivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The KeffLTB|AOA term stands for the Lower Tolerance Bound for the particular Area of Applicability (AOA; here, this is limited to Swiss LWR fuel), and its value was reported in Reference [10] as 0.99339 (following the Gaussian-based derivation; see Reference [10] for details) for the PSI CSE methodology using the MCNP code in conjunction with the ENDF/B-VII.1 library. As outlined in Section 2.4, ΔkeffAM is the “administrative margin” normally imposed to cover the unknown uncertainties to ensure subcriticality, which is assumed here to be 0.05000 (The administrative margin to criticality is normally set at 5000 pcm, i.e., the k eff of the system plus the calculation bias and uncertainty in the bias should not exceed 0.95.…”
Section: Methodology For Preliminary Loading Curve Derivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…PCC computed in correlation studies can be interpreted as the measure of similarity between the tested systems, or, similarly, as a representativity measure of a benchmark model with respect to a certain application system. Up to now, the correlation studies with NUSS have covered both Criticality Safety and Dosimetry applications, as can be found in [15], [16], [17].…”
Section: Nuss: Nuclear Data Stochastic Sampling With Ace Filesmentioning
confidence: 99%